My sarcastic brand of humor just couldn't let this thread go without
a comment.  My apologies up front to anyone I might offend, because no
offense is intended, just a good ribbing to show the absurd level this
debate has gotten to on keeping our instruments original.

I guess that Robbie is an electrical genius extraordinaire!  Let's see,
we are not supposed to install any modern components, since the "rule"
is that the machine must be kept in its original, unmodified condition.

In 1912, there were no such things as resistors, capacitors, diodes
or any other electronic components.  So, we are somehow supposed to
suppress the 4000+/- volt arcs and sparks that happen when the contacts
on the feeder are opened on each of the 122 channels.

Not only are we supposed to be able to suppress these arcs with nothing
more than copper wire and steel cores to work with, but we have to do
it without affecting the repetition rate on each note.  But, even if we
could invent such a device, we couldn't add it to the machine, because
it wasn't there to start with.  So, arc suppression is not possible and
therefore we must live with it.  This gets us to the second problem.

How do I power the two machines?  When the converter on a Mills Violano
starts up, its direction of rotation is random and thus the positive
and negative sides are random.  If I am blessed with divine intervention
on the day I try the experiment of linking the two machines together,
the two converters will turn in the same direction and the polarity will
match.  If I am not blessed on that particular start up, I will burn
two $40K machines to the ground, and probably my house with it.  But
I guess that is the risk worth taking in the spirit of keeping
everything original.

On the other hand, if I realize that this problem is present, I can
disconnect one of the two converters and connect the "slave" Violano
to the converter of the master with a rather robust cable to carry the
significant amount of power over the 15 feet separating the two
machines.  All of this assumes (we all know what assume means) that the
two machines are wired absolutely identically.  Unfortunately, a Mills
converter from a single Violano cannot handle the power needed to run
two machines, especially with an extra 15 or 20 feet of wire on every
line, and so I will burn the master machine to the ground, followed by
my house and presumably the slave machine with it.  All this without
ever having figured out how to construct the massive bundle of 122
wires between the two machines to parallel the feeder channels.

Even if I can afford the wire that will make up this cable to carry the
currents present without any loss in the lines, I can't attach it to
either machine because I can't find any evidence that this was ever
done on an original Mills Violano between the years of 1912 and 1932.

The bottom line is that I cannot hear the unique sound of two Violanos
playing in unison, which I am imagining will give me a lot more than
additional volume.  I miss out on the spatial separation, the tremolo
variations and the slight tuning differences that I would get from two
machines versus one.  After all, the multiple violins in an orchestra
produce not only a balance of volume with the other sections of the
orchestra, but the depth of sound coming from many not quite identical
instruments.  Unfortunately, I could never have the experience of
finding out if there would be any thrill of this unique sound if I
cannot touch the pristine condition of the machines, thus squelching
an inquisitive mind.

I think I will proceed with my plan to install a reversible MIDI system
into the two Violanos in my living room and will connect them to a
single MIDI controller with its tiny cable.  If nothing else, it will
keep the insurance company happy.

Jack Breen
Southboro, Massachusetts